coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
4.  The applicants were born in 1949 and 1955 respectively and live in İzmir.
5.  On 3 July 1995 the applicants' son, Ercan Dikici, who was an electrician, had an occupational accident and died from an electric shock.
6.  The same day, the Aliağa Public Prosecutor started an investigation into the incident. Subsequently, on 17 August 1995 he initiated criminal proceedings in the Aliağa Criminal Court against three persons, including the employer of Ercan Dikici and another employee who had been working with him on the day of the accident. They were charged with involuntary manslaughter under Article 455 of the Criminal Code. On 4 July 1996 the Aliağa Criminal Court acquitted the accused persons of the charges against them. On 12 May 1997 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the Aliağa Criminal Court.
7.  On 17 December 1998 the Aliağa Criminal Court found the employer of Ercan Dikici and the other employee who had been working with him guilty of involuntary manslaughter and sentenced them to six months' imprisonment. Their sentence was converted into a fine. On 16 February 2000 the Court of Cassation upheld this judgment.
8.  While the criminal proceedings were pending, on 20 November 1995 the applicants initiated compensation proceedings in the İzmir Labour Court against the employer of their son. They requested 50,000,000 Turkish liras (TRL) in respect of pecuniary damage and TRL 1,500,000,000 (approximately 28,000 US Dollars (USD)) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
9.  On an unspecified date, the İzmir Labour Court adjourned the proceedings pending the outcome of the criminal proceedings.
10.  When the criminal proceedings ended, the trial before the İzmir Labour Court resumed. The court ordered further expert reports and heard evidence from witnesses. Subsequently, on 24 May 2001 the court decided to award TRL 600,000,000 to the applicants in respect of non-pecuniary damage with statutory interest running from 3 July 1995. It further found that the applicants had not been in any way financially dependent on their deceased son and therefore rejected their claim for compensation for pecuniary damage.
11.  On 5 July 2001 the Court of Cassation decided that the amount of compensation for non-pecuniary damage should be increased to TRL 1,000,000,000 (approximately USD 790) with statutory interest running from 3 July 1995[1]. Holding that there was no other reason to quash the judgment of the İzmir Labour Court, it rejected the remainder of the applicants' appeal requests. This decision was served on the applicants on 22 August 2001. The same day, the defendant party paid TRL 2,677,533,000 to the applicants (approximately USD 1,850).
5.  The applicant was born in 1969 and lives in Suwałki.
6.  On 27 August 1992 the applicant and K. P., disguised as police officers, requested A. J. and Z. T. to present their car registration documents for inspection. Subsequently, as it transpires from the case file, the applicant, assisted by K. P., seized the car and drove away.
7.  On 27 August 1992 a criminal investigation was opened against the applicant and K. P. by the Suwałki District Prosecutor's Office.
8.  On an unspecified date in 1993 the applicant was committed for trial before the Suwałki District Court on a charge of car theft.
9.  On 18 February 1995 a burglary was committed at the Suwałki District Court building and the case documents were stolen.
10.  On 15 March 1995 proceedings to have the case documents reconstructed were initiated and the criminal proceedings against the applicant were suspended.
11.  On 23 December 1996 the Suwałki District Court decided that the case documents had been partly reconstructed. The applicant appealed.
12.  On 3 February 1997 the Suwałki Regional Court upheld the District Court's decision.
13.  On 14 February 1997 the Suwałki District Court scheduled a first hearing for 6 March 1997.
14.  On 6 March 1997 the criminal proceedings against the applicant were reopened and the first hearing took place.
15.  Several subsequent hearings in the case, inter alia those of 24 April, 5 June and 26 September 1997 and 4 June 1998, were adjourned because witnesses or the accused failed to appear.
16.  On 3 December 1998 the Suwałki District Court decided to have the proceedings suspended as one of the accused, K. P., had gone into hiding.
17.  On 25 January 2007 the criminal proceedings were reopened by decision of the Suwałki District Court, as K. P. had been found. He was taken to a hearing under police escort.
18.  On 23 May 2007 the Suwałki District Court decided to discontinue the proceedings as the charges against the applicant had become time‑barred. That decision became final on 31 May 2007.
19.  On 23 May 2007 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Suwałki Regional Court under the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (Ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki) (“the 2004 Act”). He alleged that the length of the criminal proceedings pending against him before the Suwałki District Court had been excessive.
On 26 June 2007 the Suwałki Regional Court, while admitting that the proceedings in the case had been unreasonably lengthy, dismissed the applicant's complaint. The court found, following the Supreme Court's decisions in respect of the interpretation of the 2004 Act that the purpose of the remedies provided by the 2004 Act was not to have an unreasonable length declared and damages awarded but to accelerate the course of pending proceedings. The court concluded that as the proceedings had eventually been discontinued, the complaint lodged by the applicant pursuant to the 2004 Act had served its purpose. It was accordingly unfounded and had to be dismissed.
4.  The applicants were born in 1984 and 1985 respectively and live in İzmir.
5.  On 30 March 2004 the applicants quarrelled with S.C. As the quarrel turned into a fight, a certain M.C. intervened to stop them and he was stabbed by the second applicant. On 31 March 2004 the police took the statements of the parties, including the applicants.
6.  On 8 April 2004 the İzmir public prosecutor filed an indictment against the applicants with the İzmir Magistrates' Court for the alleged assault with a knife, occasioning actual bodily harm. He requested that the applicants be sentenced pursuant to Article 456 § 4 of the Criminal Code. The indictment was not served on the applicants.
7.  On 28 April 2004 the İzmir Magistrates' Court, without holding a hearing, issued a penal order and found the applicants guilty as charged. The court fined the applicants to 445,616,000 Turkish liras (TRL) (equivalent to 268 euros (EUR)) and TRL 594,154,000 (equivalent to EUR 357) respectively. In doing so, it relied on the “simplified procedure” stipulated in Article 386 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for relatively minor offences.
8.  On 15 July 2004 the İzmir Criminal Court dismissed the applicants' objection, without holding a hearing.
9.  On 6 December 2004 the first applicant paid TRL 618,000,000 (equivalent to EUR 330) including interests. The second applicant has not paid the fine.
4.  The applicant was born in 1944 and lives in Skopje.
5.  He worked in a company for production of chemical products (“the employer”).
6.  On 8 February 1993 a second-instance commission of the Pension and Social Insurance Fund (“the Fund”) declared the applicant completely and permanently incapacitated due to a work-related eye-disease. On 30 April 1993 the applicant's employment terminated ipso jure. On 4 June 1993 the Fund determined the amount of his disability pension.
7.  In other proceedings that ended with the Supreme Court's decision of 6 July 1995, it was established that the applicant had contracted a work-related eye-disease.
8.  On 4 April 1994 the applicant brought a civil action against his employer requesting the then Skopje Municipal Court to award him compensation for the pecuniary and non-pecuniary loss sustained as a result of his disease.
9.  On four hearings listed between 22 April 1997 and 11 November 1998 the applicant specified his claim, submitted new evidence or requested additional expert examination.
10.  On 6 April 1999 the Skopje Court of First Instance (“the first-instance court”) dismissed the applicant's claim finding that the damage to his eye was to be regarded as a disease and that the employer could not be held responsible for the applicant's disease. It based its decision on a range of evidence: the expert report of the Forensic Institute of 6 April 1995; its supplement of 25 December 1995; the oral evidence of the Institute's experts produced on a hearing of 19 February 1998; the statements of two co-workers and a physician working with the employer. On 5 April 2000 the Skopje Court of Appeal quashed this decision instructing the lower court to obtain an alternative expert opinion from a hospital since the Institute's experts were not eye-disease specialists.
11.  On 8 February 2002 the first-instance court dismissed the applicant's claim again. The alternative expert examination confirmed that the damage to the applicant's eye could not be regarded as work-related. On 5 June 2002 the Skopje Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's appeal.
12.  On 28 October 2002 the applicant lodged with the Supreme Court an appeal on points of law (ревизија) which was dismissed by a decision of 22 October 2003. This decision was served on the applicant on 5 December 2003.
4.  The applicants were born in 1971 and 1960 respectively and live in village of Stryama, the Plovdiv region.
5.  On 21 January 1995 criminal proceedings were opened against an unknown perpetrator in respect of the theft of two sheep and a lamb. On 27 January 1995 the police took a statement from Mr Yankov in which he confessed to taking part in the commission of the offence.
6.  On 24 February 1995 the investigation against an unknown perpetrator was transformed into an investigation against Mr Yankov and two other individuals.
7.  From April 1995 until October 2001 the case remained dormant. In October 2001 the authorities started working on it. On 7 November 2001 Mr Yankov was charged. The investigation was completed in February 2002, and Mr Yankov was indicted on 15 July 2002.
8.  The first hearing, listed for 2 July 2003, was adjourned because certain witnesses and an expert were absent. It took place on 29 January 2004. The Plovdiv District Court approved a plea agreement between Mr Yankov and the prosecution and terminated the proceedings. The applicant was sentenced to one year's imprisonment, suspended.
9.  On 4 September 1993 the police received a complaint that six sheep had been stolen. The following day, 5 September 1993, they took statements from Mr Manchev and Mr Yankov in which the applicants confessed to taking part in the commission of the offence.
10.  On 19 October 1993 a preliminary investigation was opened against the applicants and two other individuals on charges of theft.
11.  Between November 1993 and November 2001 the case remained dormant. In November 2001 the authorities started working on it. Mr Yankov and Mr Manchev were charged on 16 and 19 November 2001 respectively. In December 2003 the investigation was completed, and the applicants were indicted in January 2004.
12.  At the first hearing, held on 27 October 2004, the Plovdiv District Court approved a plea agreement between the applicants and the prosecution and terminated the proceedings. Each of the applicants was sentenced to one year's imprisonment, suspended.
4.  The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Volgograd.
5.  In 1986 the applicant was engaged in emergency operations at the site of the Chernobyl nuclear plant disaster. As a result he suffered from extensive exposure to radioactive emissions. In 1997 he underwent medical examinations which established a link between his poor health and his involvement in the Chernobyl events. The applicant was awarded compensation, to be paid monthly.
6.  In 2000 the applicant brought proceedings against the Welfare Office of the Krasnooktyabrskiy District of the Volgograd Region (Управление социальной защиты населения Краснооктябрьского района Волгоградской области - “the defendant”) for an increase in the compensation, for the increase to be backdated and for recovery of the unpaid amount. The applicant considered that the amount of compensation had been determined incorrectly.
7.  On 5 October 2000 the Krasnooktyabrskiy District Court of Volgograd upheld the applicant's action and awarded him a lump sum of 113,707.59 Russian roubles (RUB) and monthly payments of RUB 4,051.88, to be paid before the date of the subsequent medical examination, which was made in June 2002.
8.  On 24 April 2002 the lump sum, and on 29 April 2003 and on 30 May 2003 the arrears of the monthly payments, were credited to the applicant's account, so that the judgment was enforced in full.
9.  On 13 February 2004, at the defendant's request, the Presidium of the Volgograd Regional Court quashed the judgment of 5 October 2000 and remitted the case for a fresh examination. The basis for this decision was that the District Court had applied the substantive law incorrectly.
10.  On 4 June 2004 the Krasnooktyabrskiy District Court of Volgograd terminated the proceedings due to the applicant's failure to appear. The applicant did not appeal. Instead, he brought another set of proceedings with the same court, claiming adjustment of monthly payments and seeking damages for 1997-2007.
11.  After several sets of proceedings, by a final judgment of 16 August 2007 the Krasnooktyabrskiy District Court of Volgograd granted the applicant's claims in part, i.e. lowering the amounts previously awarded by the judgment of 5 October 2000. It took into account that the latter judgment had been quashed on 13 February 2004, recalculated the sums paid under it and deducted the difference from the sums awarded. The judgment entered into force on 3 September 2007.
3.  The applicant was born in 1977 and lives in Osmaniye.
4.  While performing his compulsory military service, the applicant sustained a serious knee injury, which led to his eventual discharge.
5.  The applicant subsequently lodged a request with the Retired Civil Servants' Fund (Emekli Sandığı) to receive disability benefits in connection with his knee injury.
6. On 15 September 2003 the Retired Civil Servants' Fund rejected the applicant's request. On 21 November 2003 the applicant applied to the Supreme Military Administrative Court for the annulment of this decision.
7.  On 23 September 2004 the Supreme Military Administrative Court held a hearing where it heard the principal public prosecutor, who presented his written opinion on the merits of the case which had been previously submitted to the court on 7 July 2004, and the parties. The written opinion of the principal public prosecutor had not been communicated to the applicant prior to the hearing.
8.  On 10 February 2005 the Supreme Military Administrative Court rejected the applicant's request. The applicant sought the rectification of this judgment.
9.  On 26 May 2005 the Supreme Military Administrative Court dismissed the applicant's rectification request, which decision was served on the applicant on 8 June 2005.
3.  The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Istanbul.
4.  On 10 October 1990 the applicant, who served as a first lieutenant in the Turkish Armed Forces at the material time, was arrested on suspicion of, inter alia, professional misconduct and bribery.
5.  On 28 March 1991 the military prosecutor at the 33rd Infantry Division Commander's office filed an indictment charging the applicant with twenty-four different offences, including professional misconduct, bribery and assault and battery of his inferiors.
6.  On 12 May 1993 the Kırklareli Military Court acquitted the applicant in relation to certain charges and found him guilty of the remaining offences.
7.  On 19 January 1994 the Military Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the first-instance court in relation to certain offences and quashed the remainder of the judgment on grounds of, inter alia, insufficient investigation.
8.  On 7 November 1995 the Kırklareli Military Court acquitted the applicant in relation to certain charges and found him guilty as charged for the remaining offences.
9.  On 6 March 1996 the Military Court of Cassation partially upheld the first-instance court's judgment.
10.  On 16 April 1996 the Kırklareli Military Court once again acquitted the applicant in relation to certain charges and found him guilty of the remaining offences.
11.  On 9 May 1997 the applicant was expelled from the armed forces.
12.  On 10 June 1998 the Military Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the first-instance court on procedural grounds in relation to certain charges and for being time-barred (zamanaşımı) in relation to the remainder.
13.  On 5 August 1999 the Çorlu Military Court found the applicant guilty as charged in relation to those offences which were not time-barred and of which he had not already been acquitted.
14.  On 28 March 2001 the Military Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the first-instance court once again in the light of a recent amendment to the relevant jurisdictional rules, and held that the case should be heard by ordinary criminal courts.
15.  On 26 December 2001 the Çorlu Military Court issued a decision of lack of jurisdiction and referred the case to the Kırklareli Assize Court.
16.  On 2 December 2003 the Kırklareli Assize Court decided to discontinue the proceedings against the applicant as the prosecution had become time-barred.
4.  The applicant was born in 1934 and lives in Trenčín.
5.  On 16 November 1999 the applicant challenged the validity of a company's statute before the Trenčín Regional Court. The case was registered under the file number 7 Cb 73/99.
6.  The case was dealt with by the Regional Court. The Supreme Court examined, for three months, the applicant's request for an interim measure.
7.  On 7 May 2003 the Regional Court discontinued the proceedings as there was an obstacle of litis pendens. The applicant's appealed.
8.  On 4 August 2003 the file was transferred to the Supreme Court which quashed the first-instance decision and remitted the case to the Regional Court. The file was transferred back to the latter on 31 October 2003.
9.  On 20 May 2004 the Regional Court delivered a judgment on the applicant's claims.
10.  The defendant appealed. The file was transferred to the Supreme Court on 11 October 2004.
11.  On 3 November 2005 the Supreme Court adopted a judgment which was served on the parties and became final on 20 December 2005.
12.  In 2000 the applicant filed two and in 2003 one action, in which he challenged decisions taken at a company's general meeting.
13.  The Regional Court dealt with the first action in proceedings no. 7 Cb 13/00. Its judgment was partially upheld and partially amended by the Supreme Court. The judgment became final on 21 June 2005.
14.  The second action was examined in the proceedings 7 Cb 60/00. On 20 May 2004 it was joined to and decided upon in the proceedings 7 Cb 73/99 mentioned above (see point A).
15.  The proceedings on the third action (file no. 7 Cbs 5/03) ended by the Supreme Court's decision of 20 June 2007.
16.  On 18 August 2004, on the applicant's complaint, the Constitutional Court found that the Regional Court had violated the applicant's right to a hearing within a reasonable time in the proceedings no. 7 Cb 73/99. The length of the proceedings was partly due to the complexity of the case and the applicant's conduct. The Regional Court had remained inactive for a period exceeding two years. The overall length of the proceedings was in itself excessive in the particular circumstances of the case.
17.  The Constitutional Court ordered the Regional Court to proceed with the case without further delay and to reimburse the applicant's costs. It held that its finding in itself provided appropriate just satisfaction to the applicant. The Constitutional Court, therefore, dismissed the applicant's claim in that respect.
4.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Piešťany.
5.  On 31 December 1992 the applicant filed an action with the Nitra District Court. Under the Land Ownership Act 1991 she claimed compensation for agricultural property and livestock which had been transferred to a co-operative in 1951.
6.  In March 1997, January 2002 and May 2005 issues of a procedural nature were determined by the court of appeal.
7. In September 2007 the Government informed the Court that the proceedings were pending before the District Court. No information is available about further developments in the case.
8.  On 30 December 2005 the Constitutional Court found that the District Court had violated the applicant's right to a hearing without unjustified delay. The decision stated that the proceedings had been pending for 12 years. During that period not a single hearing had been held with a view to taking evidence and establishing the facts relevant for the determination of the applicant's action. Such situation was not justified by the complexity of the case. The applicant had contributed to the length of the proceedings in that, upon the court's instruction of 3 June 1993, she had completed her action on 10 March 1997 and had not informed the District Court that, in the meantime, she had initiated proceedings with a view to establishing which person was obliged under the relevant law to pay compensation to her.
9.  As to the conduct of the District Court, unjustified delays in the proceedings exceeded 8 years. Furthermore, the District Court had failed to proceed in an effective manner, whereby the proceedings had been protracted. The Constitutional Court pointed to (i) the insufficient instruction of the applicant about essentials of her action and (ii) the decisions of the Regional Court of September 1997 and January 2002 to quash the District Court's decisions.
10.  The Constitutional Court awarded SKK 100,000 (the equivalent of 2,574 euros at that time) to the applicant as compensation for non-pecuniary damage. It ordered the District Court to avoid any further delay in the proceedings and to reimburse the applicant's costs.
4.  The applicant was born in 1973 and lives in Outokumpu.
5.  On 16 November 1999 the applicant instituted proceedings against K., a journalist, and Yhtyneet Kuvalehdet Oy, a publishing company, claiming non-pecuniary damages for suffering and distress due to an article published in 1998.
6.  On 27 January 2000 the District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten) held an oral hearing. On 4 February 2000 it rejected the action, holding that publishing the name of a convicted person did not amount to an offence and that, therefore, no right to compensation existed under Chapter 5, section 6, of the Tort Liability Act (vahingonkorvauslaki, skadeståndslagen; Act no. 412/1974).
7.  The applicant appealed. On 22 March 2001 he changed counsel.
8.  On 12 December 2002 the Helsinki Court of Appeal (hovioikeus, hovrätten) held an oral hearing. On 31 March 2003 the court partly upheld the applicant's claim and ordered the journalist and the publishing company jointly to pay the applicant EUR 2,000 for suffering and distress. The court found that there had been no justification for publishing the name of a private person such as the applicant.
9.  All the parties requested leave to appeal, which was granted on 3 September 2003.
10.  In its judgment of 19 December 2005 (precedent no. KKO 2005:136) the Supreme Court (korkein oikeus, högsta domstolen) overturned the appellate court's judgment and rejected the action.